Qwen3.8-Flash-Next vs Beam 1.0
Which is better for the money: Qwen3.8-Flash-Next by Alibaba or Beam 1.0 by Reflection? Intelligence, total benchmark cost, and end-to-end time from Artificial Analysis & other sources, snapshot 2026-10-24.
Trade-off
Verdict
Depends on your budget
Qwen3.8-Flash-Next scores 9.5 points higher (39.8 vs 30.3) but costs 1.1× as much to run the benchmark ($363 vs $319; both mid-range class). Pick Qwen3.8-Flash-Next when the extra intelligence is worth the premium, otherwise Beam 1.0.
| Metric | Qwen3.8-Flash-Next | Beam 1.0 | Difference |
|---|---|---|---|
| Intelligence (higher is better) | 39.8 | 30.3 | −23.9% Beam 1.0 is 23.9% less intelligent |
| Total AA cost (lower is better) | $362.72 | $318.73 | −12.1% Beam 1.0 is 12.1% cheaper |
| End-to-end time (lower is better) | 50.57s | 8.02s | −84.1% Beam 1.0 is 84.1% faster |
| Price per 1M tokens (in / out) | $0.15 / $0.47 | $0.40 / $1.20 | |
| Input modalities | Text, Image, Video | Text |
Beam 1.0 vs Qwen3.8-Flash-Next: 23.9% less intelligence, 12.1% less cost to run the AA benchmark, and 84.1% faster end-to-end.
Today's Pareto frontier
Against the frontier
- Qwen3.8-Flash-Next is off the frontier: at the same or lower cost, GPT-6.1 Sol (Medium) scores 47.80 for $361.
- Beam 1.0 is off the frontier: at the same or lower cost, MiMo-V2.6-Pro scores 46.30 for $207.
Qwen3.8-Flash-NextBeam 1.0Today's Pareto frontierOpen-weights frontierEvery other model
Matchup
Compare something else
Agents:
Accept: text/markdown or ?format=md returns this page as Markdown. JSON: /api/v1/compare/qwen3-8-flash-next/reflection-beam · Markdown: /api/v1/compare/qwen3-8-flash-next/reflection-beam?format=md · llms.txt · agent skill